OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

In this example, the school employees failed to recognize that the “hazing”
constituted sexual harassment. The school did not comply with its Title IX
obligations when it failed to investigate or remedy the sexual harassment.
The conduct was clearly unwelcome, sexual (e.g., sexual rumors and
name calling), and sufficiently serious that it limited the student’s ability
to participate in and benefit from the school’s education program (e.g.,
anxiety and declining class participation).

The school should have trained its employees on the type of misconduct that
constitutes sexual harassment. The school also should have made clear to its
employees that they could not require the student to confront her harassers.
Schools may use informal mechanisms for addressing harassment, but only if
the parties agree to do so on a voluntary basis. Had the school addressed
the harassment consistent with Title IX, the school would have, for example,
conducted a thorough investigation and taken interim measures to separate the
student from the accused harassers. An effective response also might have
included training students and employees on the school’s policies related to
harassment, instituting new procedures by which employees should report allegations
of harassment, and more widely distributing the contact information for the
district’s Title IX coordinator. The school also might have offered the targeted
student tutoring, other academic assistance, or counseling as necessary to
remedy the effects of the harassment.16

Title IX: Gender-Based Harassment

Over the course of a school year, a gay high school student was called
names (including anti-gay slurs and sexual comments) both to his face and
on social networking sites, physically assaulted, threatened, and ridiculed
because he did not conform to stereotypical notions of how teenage boys
are expected to act and appear (e.g., effeminate mannerisms, nontraditional
choice of extracurricular activities, apparel, and personal grooming choices).
As a result, the student dropped out of the drama club to avoid further
harassment. Based on the student’s self-identification as gay and the
homophobic nature of some of the harassment, the school did not recognize
that the misconduct included discrimination covered by Title IX. The school
responded to complaints from the student by reprimanding the perpetrators
consistent with its anti-bullying policy. The reprimands of the identified
perpetrators stopped the harassment by those individuals. It did not,
however, stop others from undertaking similar harassment of the student.

As noted in the example, the school failed to recognize the pattern of misconduct
as a form of sex discrimination under Title IX. Title IX prohibits harassment
of both male and female students regardless of the sex of the harasser—i.e.,
even if the harasser and target are members of the same sex. It also prohibits
gender-based harassment, which may include acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical
aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on sex or sex-stereotyping. Thus,
it can be sex discrimination if students are harassed either for exhibiting what
is perceived as a stereotypical characteristic for their